Richard Bates wrote:
Interestingly there are some people, (or maybe more accurately one fairly influential person?) who seem to believe that FIDE rating virtually all chess is some sort of Holy Grail.

There are two powerful arguments in favour. In countries where there isn't a national rating system, it substitutes for one. Where there is chess tourism, it facilitates this by facilitating cross-border play.

What you have to allow for is the disincentive effect of rules and regulations. In 1972, the BCF had a registration scheme, if not a licensing scheme, Congresses were outside the system but still able to be graded. This meant that organisers could establish British Congresses with entrants exceeding a thousand players without the national chess body saying "no" or "not permitted". Actually they probably did try to say that, but were overtaken by events.

It may well not even be legal for the ECF to collect passport information, but such a process would be more likely to be accepted if international ratings extended no lower than 2000 or even 2200.

I guess this tourney (almost) being rapidly sold out shows that the prize money model still rules the roost!

Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Good conditions, leisurely schedule, and the chance to play some good players might (eventually) tempt me out of retirement, but I doubt any prize money would find its way to me, so that wouldn't be a factor.

One of Sean's or Gibraltar would be my choice. After becoming an ECF member of course.....

Sadly for me I have not entered any e2e4 events recently. I find the whole idea of playing in these events attractive but less affordable now than before. Hopefully I will be able to enter one again soon. Fortunately I have been able to play in some local events over the year which are becoming more popular over in london.

Where prize money is concerned, I think things should go one way or the other. In other words high prizes or no prizes. Although I rarely win tournaments, I think winning should feel rewarding. In one rapidplay tournament I remember seeing an entry fee of Â£20 and the winner of the section walk away with just Â£40. There were about 30 players in the section! I'm not against no prizes in tournaments for small entry fees.

It was David Bronstein who first suggested to me that there be no prize money for GM tournaments. The players would play for their rating which defines their start money. Certainly that would have the advantage, that collusion between players in a Swiss to get the most money, would disappear.

It has always seemed to me that prize money in some way validates a tournament. I find this particularly so in some title norm tournaments without prizes, where it looks for all the world like players being given easy draws by the IMs who have received start moeny.

As far as I know chess is the only sport where juniors in junior events can win cash prizes. I think that is an attractive feature. That we don't always differentiate on age, gender, disability.

When determining any aspect of a congress, first decide on your objectives. If one of these is to popularise chess in Engand then you want there to be more strong players. They then act as role models. If you want more strong players you need incentives and that leads to prize money. The press will understand when there is a Â£1000 first prize. When an event is sponsored the need for prize money becomes much clearer. But one must always be fair, bridge events have paltry prize money.

It is not always correct to say that keeping the same systems means things must move backwards. The concept of the Lloyds Bank Masters didn't change all that much, but the numbers increased substantially. However, I do realise that change is one of the defining elements of a living being or organisation.

When they started the Mind Sports OLlympiad they consulted me because they wanted to offer poker, but couldn't do so without a gaming license. Try it just for trophies, I suggested. They did and poker has been one of the most successful activities at that event.

Nick Burrows wrote:I'm not saying it is a motivator for everybody. I simply noticed that the tournament seems to have sold out at record speed, and 'coincidentally' has an unusually high prize fund.

The tournament has not sold out. It's the hotel that is sold out (I'm not even sure it can be described as at record speed) and that will have more to do with the rates being charged by the hotel than the prize fund.

Interesting comment John
we can probably look at the UK model as an example

among the top chess pros... probably Adams and Short are doing well... then there is a big drop in ratings to the likes of Hebden, Cherniev, Arkell etc..

What would the average salary in the UK be? maybe Â£28k?

certainly Adams and Short would be making a good living from chess.. the rest of the professional players? I doubt it.

Other professionals... tournament organisers, coaches, book sellers, etc again a similar story...the owners of chess and bridge in London doing nicely I'd guess, Malcolm Pein does well from chess...other professional organisers...Adam Rooff, etc the many coaches in schools etc....not so sure.

yes there are people making a good living from chess in the UK but I'd guess the vast majority are below the national average for a job in the UK. It would be very interesting to see the statistics if they ever become available.